What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4610229 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4610229?

Cleaning: $390.00 awarded to landlord; Cat: $166.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $97.47 awarded to landlord; Garage Remote: $126.50 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $11.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $10.74 awarded to landlord; Replace 2 Broken Switches: $19.68 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $154.74 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat: $45.79 awarded to landlord; Replace A Door; Replace Door Handles…: $1,103.78 awarded to landlord; Rubbish And Lawn Mowing: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,458.20 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4610229?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4610229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9992489-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4610229 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4610229?

Cleaning: $390.00 awarded to landlord; Cat: $166.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $97.47 awarded to landlord; Garage Remote: $126.50 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $11.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $10.74 awarded to landlord; Replace 2 Broken Switches: $19.68 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $154.74 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat: $45.79 awarded to landlord; Replace A Door; Replace Door Handles…: $1,103.78 awarded to landlord; Rubbish And Lawn Mowing: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,458.20 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4610229?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4610229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9992489-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4610229 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4610229 — net $2,584.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$97.47	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$390.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish and lawn mowing	$200.00	Rubbish and lawn mowing
Garage remote	$126.50	Garage remote
Repairs: Replace smoke alarms	$154.74	Repairs: Replace smoke alarms
Repairs: Toilet seat	$45.79	Repairs: Toilet seat
Replace a door; replace door handles; rehang door	$1,103.78	Replace a door; replace door handles; rehang door
Window repairs: Reglaze 7 broken windows	$1,458.20	Window repairs: Reglaze 7 broken windows
Repairs: Replace 2 broken switches	$19.68	Repairs: Replace 2 broken switches
Cat	$166.00	Cat
Light bulbs/batteries	$11.45	Light bulbs/batteries
Towel rail replacement	$10.74	Towel rail replacement
Net award	$2,584.35
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,584.35

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Grayson Nikora and Elizabeth Ngamane Johnson must pay [The landlord/s] $2,584.35 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The claim for rent arrears is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing but the tenants did not.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 1 April 2021 and was initially for a fixed term to 31 March 2022. The tenancy became a periodic tenancy after the fixed term ended. The landlord gave the tenants a 63 day notice to end the tenancy as a family member was moving into the premises. Before that notice expired the tenants gave a 28 day notice to end the tenancy. The tenants’ notice was given on 14 June, which meant the tenancy ended on 12 July 2023. The tenants had moved out of the property when they gave their notice to end the tenancy.
I note that that the landlord in their application has referred to the tenants abandoning the property. However a property cannot be considered to be abandoned when notice to terminate is given by a party to end the tenancy.
The tenants left two cats at the property. The cats were inside as the cat door had been locked and they could not get out.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord’s application and rent summary records the tenant was $2,270.00 in arrears. The rent summary shows rent owing and rent paid to 4 July 2023.
During the hearing I calculated rent owing to the end of the tenancy (12 July 2023) relying on the landlord’s confirmation that the figures in bold under the hearing ‘Arrears’ were all amounts of rent in arrears.
However in reviewing this after the hearing I am satisfied that this is not the case. For example, the rent summary shows $30.00 in the ‘Arrears’ column for the 7 weeks commencing 20 October 2021, totalling $210.00. However the rent paid for those weeks is $630.00, being $30.00 a week more than the rent due.
The total rent paid during the tenancy is $69,030.00. Rent due from the start of the tenancy to and including 10 January 2023 is $55,800.00. Rent increased to $620.00/week on 11 January 2023. From that date to 12 July 2023 rent due is $15,677.14. That means rent arrears are $2,447.14: Rent due to 10 January 2023: 93 weeks at $600.00 $55,800.00 Rent due 11 January to 12 July 2023: 25 weeks 2 days at $620.00 $15,677.14 $71,477.14 Less rent paid during the tenancy $69,030.00 Rent owing $ 2,447.14
The landlord has made a claim to their insurer for rent arrears and have received a payment of $3,000.00 net of an excess of $600.00. The landlord has shown no loss as they have received more in rent under their insurance claim than the arrears I find were owing at the end of the tenancy. Accordingly this part of the claim is dismissed.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, including that there were stains and cat excrement on the carpet. Rubbish was not removed and the lawns required mowing.
Some of the cleaning costs incurred were on invoices included in the claim in addition to the cleaning claim of $72.43. The total proven for cleaning is $97.47.
The tenant did not return the remote for the garage door that was inside the house.
The landlord had to replace the light bulbs in the feature light in the lounge as it was missing.
The property has 8 smoke alarms which had all been removed at the end of the tenancy. Some of the alarms were left within the premises but were damaged or had parts missing.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Doors: An internal door was damaged and could not be repaired. A closet door was off its hinges; the hinges needed replacing the door rehanging; door handles had been removed on 5 doors. I am satisfied that the removal of the door handles and the damage to the door is intentional damage. I find compensation of $1,103.78 is reasonable and proven based on the evidence presented.
Reglaze windows: 7 window panes were broken during the tenancy. Two panes were broken prior to the inspection carried out on 27 May 2023. The tenant advised the landlord these had been broken on separate occasions to gain entry into the house. The tenant advised the other panes were broken after the inspection when a fight broke out during a party. As noted above tenants are liable for damage caused by any persons at the premises with their permission. I find this damage to be intentional.
Toilet seat: The toilet seat was damaged and required replacing.
Broken switches: A light switch and a power point switch were broken and required replacing.
Towel rail: The rail was broken off the wall. The landlord reduced their loss by installing an adhesive command hook rather than a new towel rail.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The claim for materials to fill holes in the walls was withdrawn at the hearing. The landlord advised that they had made a claim to their insurer for damage caused to walls during the tenancy. The insurer has not yet advised on the outcome of the claim, therefore any claim relating to this damage is not part of this claim.
Vet costs of the abandoned cat: The landlord confirmed the tenant told her several times that they were coming to get the cats but failed to.
The landlord claims the cost to spey and chip one of the cats left at the property ($166.00). The other cat/kitten was rehomed. The landlord approached a number of groups such as Cat Rescue to take the cat, however they were at maximum capacity. SPCA required the cat to be neutered and chipped before it would accept the cat. The landlord arranged for this to be done, and then ended up keeping the cat.
When a tenant leaves goods at the premises after the termination of a tenancy and the tenant agrees to collect the goods but fails to do so, the landlord may dispose of the goods where the market value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling the goods. The landlord is able to be compensated for the cost of disposal (s 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3), RTA).
Animals such as cats are considered goods. In this instance the alternative to the action taken by the landlord was to have the cat euthanised. I am satisfied that the cost to the landlord, including their time, travel and vet costs to euthanise the cat would be at least the cost being sought. On that basis this sum is awarded.
Filing fee: As the landlord has been mainly successful with their claim the filing fee is reimbursed.
Suppression: The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that a party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case (s 95A, RTA).

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4610229 — net $2,584.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$97.47	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$390.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish and lawn mowing	$200.00	Rubbish and lawn mowing
Garage remote	$126.50	Garage remote
Repairs: Replace smoke alarms	$154.74	Repairs: Replace smoke alarms
Repairs: Toilet seat	$45.79	Repairs: Toilet seat
Replace a door; replace door handles; rehang door	$1,103.78	Replace a door; replace door handles; rehang door
Window repairs: Reglaze 7 broken windows	$1,458.20	Window repairs: Reglaze 7 broken windows
Repairs: Replace 2 broken switches	$19.68	Repairs: Replace 2 broken switches
Cat	$166.00	Cat
Light bulbs/batteries	$11.45	Light bulbs/batteries
Towel rail replacement	$10.74	Towel rail replacement
Net award	$2,584.35
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,584.35

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Grayson Nikora and Elizabeth Ngamane Johnson must pay [The landlord/s] $2,584.35 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The claim for rent arrears is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing but the tenants did not.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 1 April 2021 and was initially for a fixed term to 31 March 2022. The tenancy became a periodic tenancy after the fixed term ended. The landlord gave the tenants a 63 day notice to end the tenancy as a family member was moving into the premises. Before that notice expired the tenants gave a 28 day notice to end the tenancy. The tenants’ notice was given on 14 June, which meant the tenancy ended on 12 July 2023. The tenants had moved out of the property when they gave their notice to end the tenancy.
I note that that the landlord in their application has referred to the tenants abandoning the property. However a property cannot be considered to be abandoned when notice to terminate is given by a party to end the tenancy.
The tenants left two cats at the property. The cats were inside as the cat door had been locked and they could not get out.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord’s application and rent summary records the tenant was $2,270.00 in arrears. The rent summary shows rent owing and rent paid to 4 July 2023.
During the hearing I calculated rent owing to the end of the tenancy (12 July 2023) relying on the landlord’s confirmation that the figures in bold under the hearing ‘Arrears’ were all amounts of rent in arrears.
However in reviewing this after the hearing I am satisfied that this is not the case. For example, the rent summary shows $30.00 in the ‘Arrears’ column for the 7 weeks commencing 20 October 2021, totalling $210.00. However the rent paid for those weeks is $630.00, being $30.00 a week more than the rent due.
The total rent paid during the tenancy is $69,030.00. Rent due from the start of the tenancy to and including 10 January 2023 is $55,800.00. Rent increased to $620.00/week on 11 January 2023. From that date to 12 July 2023 rent due is $15,677.14. That means rent arrears are $2,447.14: Rent due to 10 January 2023: 93 weeks at $600.00 $55,800.00 Rent due 11 January to 12 July 2023: 25 weeks 2 days at $620.00 $15,677.14 $71,477.14 Less rent paid during the tenancy $69,030.00 Rent owing $ 2,447.14
The landlord has made a claim to their insurer for rent arrears and have received a payment of $3,000.00 net of an excess of $600.00. The landlord has shown no loss as they have received more in rent under their insurance claim than the arrears I find were owing at the end of the tenancy. Accordingly this part of the claim is dismissed.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, including that there were stains and cat excrement on the carpet. Rubbish was not removed and the lawns required mowing.
Some of the cleaning costs incurred were on invoices included in the claim in addition to the cleaning claim of $72.43. The total proven for cleaning is $97.47.
The tenant did not return the remote for the garage door that was inside the house.
The landlord had to replace the light bulbs in the feature light in the lounge as it was missing.
The property has 8 smoke alarms which had all been removed at the end of the tenancy. Some of the alarms were left within the premises but were damaged or had parts missing.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Doors: An internal door was damaged and could not be repaired. A closet door was off its hinges; the hinges needed replacing the door rehanging; door handles had been removed on 5 doors. I am satisfied that the removal of the door handles and the damage to the door is intentional damage. I find compensation of $1,103.78 is reasonable and proven based on the evidence presented.
Reglaze windows: 7 window panes were broken during the tenancy. Two panes were broken prior to the inspection carried out on 27 May 2023. The tenant advised the landlord these had been broken on separate occasions to gain entry into the house. The tenant advised the other panes were broken after the inspection when a fight broke out during a party. As noted above tenants are liable for damage caused by any persons at the premises with their permission. I find this damage to be intentional.
Toilet seat: The toilet seat was damaged and required replacing.
Broken switches: A light switch and a power point switch were broken and required replacing.
Towel rail: The rail was broken off the wall. The landlord reduced their loss by installing an adhesive command hook rather than a new towel rail.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The claim for materials to fill holes in the walls was withdrawn at the hearing. The landlord advised that they had made a claim to their insurer for damage caused to walls during the tenancy. The insurer has not yet advised on the outcome of the claim, therefore any claim relating to this damage is not part of this claim.
Vet costs of the abandoned cat: The landlord confirmed the tenant told her several times that they were coming to get the cats but failed to.
The landlord claims the cost to spey and chip one of the cats left at the property ($166.00). The other cat/kitten was rehomed. The landlord approached a number of groups such as Cat Rescue to take the cat, however they were at maximum capacity. SPCA required the cat to be neutered and chipped before it would accept the cat. The landlord arranged for this to be done, and then ended up keeping the cat.
When a tenant leaves goods at the premises after the termination of a tenancy and the tenant agrees to collect the goods but fails to do so, the landlord may dispose of the goods where the market value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling the goods. The landlord is able to be compensated for the cost of disposal (s 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3), RTA).
Animals such as cats are considered goods. In this instance the alternative to the action taken by the landlord was to have the cat euthanised. I am satisfied that the cost to the landlord, including their time, travel and vet costs to euthanise the cat would be at least the cost being sought. On that basis this sum is awarded.
Filing fee: As the landlord has been mainly successful with their claim the filing fee is reimbursed.
Suppression: The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that a party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case (s 95A, RTA).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4610229 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4610229 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions